Red wine 'could cause cancer'

[RND]

RND-

i think you are reading much into that passage. i suppose you can do so if you wish. but a three day feast doesnt mean they were drinking non-stop for 3 days- how could they?

Do you know how many gallons are in a firkin TK? Roughly nine. At three firkins apiece these pots would have held 167 gallons of wine! That's quite a kegger!

there is nothing that said that head of the feast was trashed, although he may have been a little tipsy. you are going out on quite a limb to suggest that the miraculous wine was a buzzkill, although like i said you can certainly believe this if you wish.

Thanks for your blessing TK! I do indeed choose to believe that the wine that Jesus made instantly sobered up anyone who might have drank any. I mean if people could be healed by simply touching His garment then I'm liable to believe Christ could do basically anything.

i think it is a mistake to assume that wine drinking and perhaps some degree of "feeling good" from the wine associated with biblical feasts was "sinful." now i know the bible says not to be drunk, etc, but it seems to refer to habitual drunkenness or a lifestyle of drunkeness.

Isn't it interesting that the report I posted said that the greater health risk was to regular drinking without necessarily drunkenness? Those that drink everyday but not to get drunk seem to be at the greater risk of cancer.

i dont believe the biblical prohibitions meant that wine drinking, in association with feasts, was wrong. of course drunkeness could lead to debauchery, as possibly with the israelites when moses was on sinai.

Or Noah's nakedness and incest?

but it seems that wine was drank with regularity in Bible times, and to suggest that OT believers or NT disciples never felt the effect of the wine they drank may be a bit naive.

So too it may also be a bit naive to think that all wine being drunk in the Bible was alcoholic.

please dont take my comments as an argument for wine-bibbing. i am not doing so.

Oh, not at all. You are making a point through argument that I respect quite highly. You are very civil and I appreciate your thoughts. Ihope you don't think I'm being too prudish and overbearing on this. I do enjoy a cold beer every blue moon or so. "Liquid bread." But I do look at things this way TK. Instead of erring on the side of human understanding I would rather attempt to err on the side of what I think the Bible teaches consistently. That's obviously my position here.

[RND]

RND, again this is incorrect. My father in law simply leaves it out and in a few days it has fermented. Reason? There are also yeast spores in the air which escalates the process. Therefore the intrinsic quantity of yeast in the grape itself is only part of the equation. Also, your reference to “7 days” is variable. The hotter it is the faster the process. This means in the Middle East it would happen much faster.

If “new wine” would not ferment significantly then why would they accuse the apostles of being drunk on “new wine” in Acts 2.

Steve, the fermentation process is best between 70 and 75 five degrees. So actually leaving a bottle of grape juice out in 90 to 100 heat will simply kill the natural yeast contained on grapes. Likewise, if it is left out in colder whether the fermentation process would slow down dramatically. Suffice to say that in order to make "good wine" it's not as simple as putting grape juice in a bottle and leaving it out four days. That may be good for making "pruno" in prison but in order to make what the Bible deems "good wine" the process is simply much more involved.

These weren't "hicks" making moonshine!

RND, in Luke 5:39 Jesus was using a well known fact to integrate a point into his parable. The fact that people prefer old wine is not a parable it is a fact.

Steve, with all due respect I think you need to take a closer look at Luke 5.

Luk 5:36 And he (Jesus) spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was [taken] out of the new agreeth not with the old.
37 And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish.

See TK’s point. I don’t know where you find this in the passage??

See my response to him.

RND, I don’t see how you can interpret this as non-alcoholic wine. The wine Jesus drank was being contrasted with the wine John didn’t drink. Which wine didn’t John drink? I don't see how it can be understood as anything but alcoholic wine.

John was a nazarite and never drank any wine whether it be new or old. A Nazarite was to abstain from wine, wine vinegar, grapes, raisins. I suggest reading Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi's book because it will reveal great insight into this subject. Also, consider this. Jesus was subject to all the things that effected mankind. He got tired, hungry, hot, cold, etc. He was in a daily battle against Satan not sin. Had Jesus sinned in thought, word or deed He would have failed in His mission. Why would He risk everything for a drink of wine that could lead Him to sin?

Remember Steve, on the cross He refused the simple pain medication they attempted to give Him. He was in the final throws of this great struggle with Satan to reveal God's character to a dying world and nothing would deter Him.

Also, why would Jesus say they accused him of being a drunkard if he was drinking grape juice. The inference here is quite clear to me.

So if my wine drinking cause my neighbor to stumble I shouldn't do it.

Yes, that seems to be what Paul is saying. The point is that many Christians clearly seemed to be doing it but Paul did not call it a sin nor forbid it. May I add RND, that if you think drinking wine is a sin you should not do it. We should never do anything against out conscience. At the end of the passage Paul states the following:

Steve, I haven't said once that I think anyone who drinks wine is a sinner or is being sinful. Let everyman be persuaded in his own mind. BTW, I don't drink wine because I've never liked the taste quite frankly.

Therefore, if you think it’s wrong and do it anyway then you’ve sinned. Though technically you’ve done nothing wrong, you have sinned because, in your mind, you have disobeyed God. Once you are convinced in your own mind that it’s not sin, then you’re free to drink.

Got it!

Yes, that’s the point. Paul never told anyone not to drink even while acknowledging that some did.

Which is what the news clip was stating. Lite drinking everyday is apparently a cancer risk.

[darinhouston]

I don't intend to engage the biblical discussion on this point -- I have too little doubt in this matter to engage in a "debate," but I do have this to offer on the main subject of the topic.... I haven't watched the clip, but have you seen anything beyond a single news clip that makes this claim? I make no appeal to authority, but the following does inform my position on the subject....

My wife was involved in some early research in nutritional epidemiology and cancer prevention for perhaps the number one cancer research hospital in the world, and keeps up with the folks doing these studies, and I take this as just another single news story with no substantiation until a serious academic study is involved. There is and always has been a significantly increased relationship to women's breast cancer from even moderate alcohol use, but for men, I am unaware of any adverse health effects for moderate alcohol use (other than the obvious concern over abuse) and a high correlation to minimze the risk of heart disease. Again, moderate means different things to different people, but a drink or two a night is generally considered moderate.

[RND]

Darin, there are a number of studies both pro and con on the subject frankly. We could go nuts posting all the links to them. I think, as well as you do I suppose (especially regarding your wife), that it is better to err on the side of caution as opposed to attempting to fly too close to the sun on wings made of wax!

Wine, Women And ... Spirits, Beer And Breast Cancer Risk

"One of the largest individual studies of the effects of alcohol on the risk of breast cancer has concluded that it makes no difference whether a woman drinks wine, beer or spirits (liquor) - it is the alcohol itself (ethyl alcohol) and the quantity consumed that is likely to trigger the onset of cancer. The increased breast cancer risk from drinking three or more alcoholic drinks a day is similar to the increased breast cancer risk from smoking a packet of cigarettes or more a day"

Alcohol consumption raises cancer risk - wine included

"Consumption of alcohol, including wine, increases the risk of several common cancers, even though many studies confirm a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease from alcohol intake. An article appearing in the Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis presents definite evidence of these findings amongst other papers as part of an open forum discussion on wine, alcohol, and cardiovascular risk."

[darinhouston]

Much of life includes a balance of risks. We also drink a diet soda every week or so, in flagrant disregard of the cancer risk, though as good stewards we don't have them every day.

Were you aware that oxygen was toxic and that you increase the onset of organ failure and death with every breath as the toxicity builds up in your system throughout your life? Flying pretty close to the sun, I guess, but getting out of breath playing with my son seems to be worth it most days.

[SteveF]

RND, just so we don’t miss the forest for the trees, you stated originally:

Is it not possible that they just drank grape juice? The yeast cells contained on grapes naturally certainly will produce alcohol through fermentation, but this process takes an awfully long time, months and not days. Lastly, once the fermentation process is completely and the wine is fully alcoholic then it is full of sin.

Your reason to say this was to show that Jesus and others did not consume alcohol. I showed this to be incorrect. It ferments into alcohol quite quickly. I offered the experience of people who have been growing grapes and making wine since they were kids who are now in their 80’s.

You then began to post information about the fermentation process. It seems you’re now saying that your original statement was incorrect. I’m trying to read between the lines. Is that what you’re trying to say?

Steve, with all due respect I think you need to take a closer look at Luke 5.

Luk 5:36 And he (Jesus) spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was [taken] out of the new agreeth not with the old.
37 And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish.

RND, you are missing what I’m saying. Please read it again. I never said it wasn’t a parable. I said Jesus included a fact within the parable. For instance, in the parable about yeast and bread, Jesus used the fact about yeast affecting bread to illustrate a point. In Luke 5:39 Jesus used to fact that people prefer old wine in order to make a point. Hence, if the people at the wedding saw the wine that was provided as the best then it was likely old. Regardless, new wine is fermented as well. It just doesn’t taste very good and, according to my in-laws, can have some nasty side effects. These facts fit very well in the John 2 passage.

See TK’s point. I don’t know where you find this in the passage??


See my response to him.

I already did but I didn’t see anything that explained the passage at hand using exegesis.

John was a nazarite and never drank any wine whether it be new or old. A Nazarite was to abstain from wine, wine vinegar, grapes, raisins. I suggest reading Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi's book because it will reveal great insight into this subject. Also, consider this. Jesus was subject to all the things that effected mankind. He got tired, hungry, hot, cold, etc. He was in a daily battle against Satan not sin. Had Jesus sinned in thought, word or deed He would have failed in His mission. Why would He risk everything for a drink of wine that could lead Him to sin?

Remember Steve, on the cross He refused the simple pain medication they attempted to give Him. He was in the final throws of this great struggle with Satan to reveal God's character to a dying world and nothing would deter Him.

I appreciate that you have personal feelings in the matter but I’m just reading the text and it seems evident to me that Jesus drank a fermented drink. Can you show me, in the passage, any reason to think otherwise:

Luk 7:33 For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, 'He has a demon.'
Luk 7:34 The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, 'Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'

It was quite natural and common for people to drink wine in that day. Therefore the scriptures make a point to say that John didn't drink wine. In the case of Jesus no such statement is made. In fact we are lead to the opposite conclusion...that he did. Why would the scripture clearly make a point of stating that John didn't drink wine but leaves the opposite impression with Jesus. Also, if Jesus made a point of drinking non-alcoholic wine wouldn't the writers of scripture want to clearly point that out, just like they did with John. Instead we're left with the opposite impression.

Steve, I haven't said once that I think anyone who drinks wine is a sinner or is being sinful.

Why would He (Jesus) risk everything for a drink of wine that could lead Him to sin?

I'm trying to reconcile these two statements.

I could ask the question, “Why would Jesus allow a woman to wash his feet if that could lead him to sin” You stated that drinking wine is not a sin. Therefore, don’t you think Jesus would know when to stop? A lot of people who aren’t Christians know when to stop.

I do enjoy a cold beer every blue moon or so

It looks like you drink more alcohol than I do. As I stated, I have no personal agenda, I’m just trying to read the text.

[SteveF]

Were you aware that oxygen was toxic and that you increase the onset of organ failure and death with every breath as the toxicity builds up in your system throughout your life? Flying pretty close to the sun, I guess, but getting out of breath playing with my son seems to be worth it most days.

Good point Darin, sometimes we can get carried away with studies. Common sense usually prevails. I jokingly said to someone who i thought was getting too caught up in these kinds of studies the following:

"Studies show that people who breathe air and eat food on a regular basis have a tendency to die"

Research information, like the kind your wife is involved in providing is very helpfull but, as you stated, it can lead to obsession in it's application sometimes.

[RND]

Much of life includes a balance of risks. We also drink a diet soda every week or so, in flagrant disregard of the cancer risk, though as good stewards we don't have them every day.

Were you aware that oxygen was toxic and that you increase the onset of organ failure and death with every breath as the toxicity builds up in your system throughout your life? Flying pretty close to the sun, I guess, but getting out of breath playing with my son seems to be worth it most days.

Of course Darin! We are dying with every passing day!

[RND]

Your reason to say this was to show that Jesus and others did not consume alcohol.

At the feast of Cana? That would be correct.

I showed this to be incorrect. It ferments into alcohol quite quickly. I offered the experience of people who have been growing grapes and making wine since they were kids who are now in their 80’s.

Great, I'm not disputing that. Grape juice can be fermented with up to 70 of it's sugar content turned into alcohol within just a mater of a week or two. However Steve this would not be considered "good wine" but rather cheap wine. I'm sorry your Grandparent's in law have been drinking what amounts to "swill" for so long. But I suspect they are smart enough to clarify, and age their wine too.

Steve, people don't pay hundreds or even thousands of dollars for week-old wine Steve. They do however for aged wine. The older the better. Same with cheese. Some of the best and most expensive cheeses are not those made in just weeks or months but years. I doubt this fact is lost on your grandparents in law.

You then began to post information about the fermentation process. It seems you’re now saying that your original statement was incorrect. I’m trying to read between the lines. Is that what you’re trying to say?

Not at all. I have always gone by the assumption in this debate that we have been talking about "good" wine not swill. I can produce wine myself in about a week or two out of common juices, I get that. But that has little to do with quality and I think my "months not days" comment reflects where I'm coming from.

RND, you are missing what I’m saying. Please read it again.

Steve, I have to take exception with this point simply because it is commonly assumed around these parts that i comment frequently without reading. This is not true. Your point was this: "The fact that people prefer old wine is not a parable it is a fact." From a drinking standpoint I'd agree with that. But in His parable Jesus was not comparing what people like to drink old wine better than new.

He was specifically comparing placing grape juice into "old bottles" because as it ferments the gasses released would cause the bottles to break. The implication is that the blood of the lamb (Holy Spirit) has to fill up the converted (the new man) as indicated by the New bottles. The parable has -zero- to do with what people enjoy drinking.

I never said it wasn’t a parable. I said Jesus included a fact within the parable. For instance, in the parable about yeast and bread, Jesus used the fact about yeast affecting bread to illustrate a point. In Luke 5:39 Jesus used to fact that people prefer old wine in order to make a point.

Nope.

Luk 5:37 And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish.

Hence, if the people at the wedding saw the wine that was provided as the best then it was likely old. Regardless, new wine is fermented as well. It just doesn’t taste very good and, according to my in-laws, can have some nasty side effects. These facts fit very well in the John 2 passage.

They also fit withing the general argument that you've been telling me I've been making are incorrect! C'mon Steve give me a little credit! I said the fermentation process takes months, not weeks to produce wine. When I said this I has no delusion of drinking anything that "doesn’t taste very good" or that has "nasty side effects." Oy vey!

Now on to your point about John 2. Do you think Jesus made wine that "doesn’t taste very good" or that has "nasty side effects?" I don't. But that doesn't mean that the best wine these folks ever had tasted was alcoholic. That's an assumption. A guess frankly. I'll stick with my take that the wine Jesus made sobered up the crowd....it get them more hammered.

I already did but I didn’t see anything that explained the passage at hand using exegesis.

Then you missed a great point!

I appreciate that you have personal feelings in the matter but I’m just reading the text and it seems evident to me that Jesus drank a fermented drink. Can you show me, in the passage, any reason to think otherwise:

Luk 7:33 For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, 'He has a demon.'
Luk 7:34 The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, 'Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'

It was quite natural and common for people to drink wine in that day. Therefore the scriptures make a point to say that John didn't drink wine. In the case of Jesus no such statement is made. In fact we are lead to the opposite conclusion...that he did. Why would the scripture clearly make a point of stating that John didn't drink wine but leaves the opposite impression with Jesus. Also, if Jesus made a point of drinking non-alcoholic wine wouldn't the writers of scripture want to clearly point that out, just like they did with John. Instead we're left with the opposite impression.

From Dr. Bacchiocchi's book:

Two Different Lifestyles. The reasoning that "John drank no wine, while Christ did, therefore we may drink" ignores several crucial considerations. First of all, the phrase "eating and drinking" is used idiomatically to describe not so much the difference in their eating and drinking habits, as the difference in their social lifestyles.

Christ’s lifestyle was eminently social; therefore, in the common parlance of that time, He came "eating and drinking," even though He was dependent for food and drink upon the gracious hospitality of friends. John’s lifestyle was fundamentally eremitic—away from society in the solitude of the wilderness; therefore, in common parlance, he came "neither eating bread nor drinking wine"(NIV). The two phrases serve to emphasize the contrast between John’s lifestyle of full social isolation and Christ’s lifestyle of free social association. The emphasis is not on alcohol but on social lifestyle.

Ernest Gordon accurately describes the contrast implied by Christ’s statement, saying: "It contrasts the isolation of John’s life with the social character of Christ’s. John was a wilderness prophet. He neither ate nor drank with others and avoided human companionship. Into the wilderness were driven the insane and devil-possessed. Hence the suggestion that he himself was of this class. Our Lord associated freely with others at meals and elsewhere. He too was slandered, called a glutton, and charged with being oinopotes, a drinker of (intoxicating) wine. There is no proof that he was either."53

Two Different Missions. The difference in lifestyle between Jesus and John is indicative of their different missions. John was called to prepare the way for Christ’s ministry by preaching a message of repentance and reformation. In order to fulfill this mission he was called to rebuke the excesses of his time by living an abstemious life in the wilderness, away from the haunts of people. Jesus was anointed to another mission, which included proclaiming the Good News of the Kingdom. In order to fulfill this mission Jesus did not withdraw into the wilderness, but reached the people in their homes, towns and villages.

As the austerity of John’s lifestyle led his slanderers to charge him with being demon-possessed, so the sociability of Jesus’ lifestyle led the same critics to charge Him with indulgence in sensuous delights, with being "a glutton and a drunkard." Both charges were groundless, because both Jesus and John lived exemplary lives of self-denial. They followed different lifestyles because they had their different mission.

John, a Nazirite. An important reason for Jesus’ saying of John the Baptist that he came "drinking no wine" (Luke 7:33), is the fact that John was a Nazirite from his mother’s womb. This is the way most commentators interpret Luke 1:15, where the angel instructs Zechariah regarding John, saying: "He shall drink no wine nor strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb." Nazirites were people who showed their total consecration to God by abstaining not only from "wine and strong drink" but also from grape juice and grapes (Num 6:1-4).

Steve, I haven't said once that I think anyone who drinks wine is a sinner or is being sinful.

I'm trying to reconcile these two statements.

I could ask the question, “Why would Jesus allow a woman to wash his feet if that could lead him to sin” You stated that drinking wine is not a sin. Therefore, don’t you think Jesus would know when to stop? A lot of people who aren’t Christians know when to stop.

The difference is Jesus was in control of the situation with the woman that washed His feet. Under the influence of any outside substance such as alcohol, because He was fully man, could lead Him to sin. Unless of course you think Jesus was indulging in a nice Chianti while getting His feet washed!

Steve, using the logic you are using what would be wrong with making the assumption that Jesus smoked weed or opium?

It looks like you drink more alcohol than I do. As I stated, I have no personal agenda, I’m just trying to read the text.

What, so because I drink a beer once every couple of months you are somehow better than me Steve?! Watch that halo of yours brother!

[SteveF]

RND, it seems you've misunderstood almost everything I'm saying. I've tried to clarify what I'm saying with no success. I'm going to assume that I've done a very poor job trying to communicate my points. Since I prefer to interact with what I'm actually trying to say and not constantly trying to clarify and respond to what I'm not saying I'm going to leave this discussion. I gave it a fair shot but I guess I failed to get my points across in an understandable fashion.

Peace
Steve